Instead of being hostile fcks, you can all educate him. He clearly doesnt understand distribution and decentralization.

What can i expect from bitcoin community?

i'd extend that to society at large, honestly... though particularly so the internet. maybe that's just me and my experiences... though honestly, i kinda like it that way. educating people is great, it really is. but, to qoute Ron white, i think it was - "you can't fix stupid." ...course that was probably a horrible person to qoute just then...but the sentiment fit.

...ya know, sometimes i'm a real asshole... oh well.

If ppl are born stupid and you cant fix them, what the point of belittling them?

The whole thread can be done with one simple reply. You would think a new bitcoiner coming to this forum reading this type of thread would take bitcoin seriously?

There should be more enforcement from the admins to keep children in their playground.

How a currency that approx 50% is held by a few people can be stated as a decentralize money? These people together can influence the value of bitcoin with their spending. In a way, they are in control of it's value and saying that it is fully decentralize is only a lie. The more the bitcoin will be valuable, the more they will be able to be in control. Unproportional holding of a currency is never good for the majority.

Decentralized means that no central party controls how Bitcoin operates.

Decentralized does not mean that every person who holds coins is equally wealthy.

Further, having tons of coins does not bestow any special power upon the holder of the coins. While someone with many coins can "dump" them on the market and affect prices, this is only temporary, for after the dump the person will have surrendered his coins to dozens of new owners, and thus you should see that the problem is self-correcting.

A wealthy person can only "manipulate" a market for a temporary amount of time, and does so at great risk (and often great loss) to himself.

Instead of being hostile fcks, you can all educate him. He clearly doesnt understand distribution and decentralization.

What can i expect from bitcoin community?

I'm usually all for being nice and explaining things.

knight22 however thinks he knows all the answers already and attacks one (if not the) fundamental feature/value of bitcoin (decentralization) by saying it doesn't exist and also takes a stab at a very emotional topic (early mover advantage). Probably most thought him to be a blatant troll.

I can understand why he's not met with caring understanding and I don't think that's what he needs, either.

That's not very accurate as comparison since these billionaires you talk about don't hold >60 bi USD in cash or in their bank accounts as money. They hold an enormous amount of assets which, when quoted in dollars, reach such value. But these assets are not USD and could very well be quoted in BTC for example.

Except the wealthy in America pay much lower taxes and much of their wealth is from printed dollars handed out by government to them - printed dollars that devalue the dollars of the middle class mostly.

Except the wealthy in America pay much lower taxes and much of their wealth is from printed dollars handed out by government to them - printed dollars that devalue the dollars of the middle class mostly.

In my country that linked example however is pretty spot on.

Actually, in America the number that don't pay anything would have started out as 5, and the one rich guy would be paying closer to $70. The top 5% in the US pay roughly 80% of the total taxes. That's not a tax rate, mind you, that's the net total tax revenue. 49% of the population pays zero net taxes to the federal government, and roughly half of them get more from federal programs and grants than they pay in. I should know, I'm one of those who get back as much as I pay in. The irony there is that I pay in a lot. I earn a great deal of money, upper middle class even by US standards; yet I have a lot of deductions and tax credits. For example, I'm a foster parent; so the government (via block grants to states, and then the state to me) pays for the expenses of those fosters. Althouh that is mostly just a repayment, I do literally receive just about as much money via those reimbursements than i pay in federal taxes. And I'm in a middle class tax bracket, and paid in about $13K last year.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Actually, in America the number that don't pay anything would have started out as 5, and the one rich guy would be paying closer to $70. The top 5% in the US pay roughly 80% of the total taxes.

I honestly don't have all the numbers and there is so much propaganda floating around I hardly know what's real these days HOWEVER:

IF much of the top wealth in the USA really is from printed dollars then the tax paid by the receivers of such mean nothing:Its like if I rob you and then donate a few nickles to charity.

Considering the deficit printing and the bailouts and that the richest often hold their wealth in assets, not fiat, I would not be surprised if in truth the poor and the middle class in the US carry the largest burden.

I think money printing is more disruptive than most realize. It doesn't just lower fiat value, it makes it impossible to see whether a venture is creating value for society or just tapping into the flow of fake money - given time such confusion corrupts your entire economy vastly.

Considering the deficit printing and the bailouts and that the richest often hold their wealth in assets, not fiat, I would not be surprised if in truth the poor and the middle class in the US carry the largest burden.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The line for joining the top 5% is about $120K per year, which is considered upper middle class by our own government tax bracket system. So yes, one can literally say that the top 5% pay 80% of the taxes, while also say that the middle class shoulders most of the burden at the same time. Bear in mind that when a politico speaks, he doesn't always use those words in the same way that you might understand them.

Quote

Sure the top 5% of the population may not be well-connected bankers or corporate heads, but they may well be working for such.

Quote

As noted above, most of them still work for others. Not usually bankers or directly for corporate execs, though.

I think money printing is more disruptive than most realize. It doesn't just lower fiat value, it makes it impossible to see whether a venture is creating value for society or just tapping into the flow of fake money - given time such confusion corrupts your entire economy vastly.

Yup.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Actually, in America the number that don't pay anything would have started out as 5, and the one rich guy would be paying closer to $70. The top 5% in the US pay roughly 80% of the total taxes. That's not a tax rate, mind you, that's the net total tax revenue. 49% of the population pays zero net taxes to the federal government, and roughly half of them get more from federal programs and grants than they pay in. I should know, I'm one of those who get back as much as I pay in. The irony there is that I pay in a lot. I earn a great deal of money, upper middle class even by US standards; yet I have a lot of deductions and tax credits. For example, I'm a foster parent; so the government (via block grants to states, and then the state to me) pays for the expenses of those fosters. Althouh that is mostly just a repayment, I do literally receive just about as much money via those reimbursements than i pay in federal taxes. And I'm in a middle class tax bracket, and paid in about $13K last year.

Interesting observation about your cash flow statement. On the other hand (as the famous one-armed economist would say), you and I and everybody else in a developped country have a lot of public assets on our balance sheet like roads you can travel, hospitals, mostly educated people around you, etc

Having said that, @OP, the bitcoin money supply mechanism is both decentralized and self-regulated: there is no incentive to hoard beyond a certain, stable equilibrium point where the two functions of money (store of value and medium of exchange) are fulfilled optimally.Because bitcoins are infinitely divisible (I know about satoshis being handled as integer numbers by the current reference implementation but that is not cast in concrete), the exact position of the equilibrium point is irrelevant (we can have 99% percent hoarding at equilibrium and still enjoy a fully functional monetary system).

How a currency that approx 50% is held by a few people can be stated as a decentralize money? These people together can influence the value of bitcoin with their spending. In a way, they are in control of it's value and saying that it is fully decentralize is only a lie. The more the bitcoin will be valuable, the more they will be able to be in control. Unproportional holding of a currency is never good for the majority.

Decentralized means that no central party controls how Bitcoin operates.

Decentralized does not mean that every person who holds coins is equally wealthy.

Further, having tons of coins does not bestow any special power upon the holder of the coins. While someone with many coins can "dump" them on the market and affect prices, this is only temporary, for after the dump the person will have surrendered his coins to dozens of new owners, and thus you should see that the problem is self-correcting.

A wealthy person can only "manipulate" a market for a temporary amount of time, and does so at great risk (and often great loss) to himself.

I agree that every person who holds coins have not to be equally wealthy but the problem is when the imbalance is way to big, it's give control to the holder on the value of the currency.

Also, it is false to say that this person can dump is currency only once. Of course, he will do it in a manner that a huge amount will come back to him again (investment, companies, assets, etc)

When a person or a group of person are in control of the value, IT IS CENTRALIZE. And no matter how you will call it, the problem still remain.

Interesting. I'm pretty close to the minimum wage end (I make decent hourly rates, but I work less paid hours. I do a lot of other work I don't get paid for, and like to spend time with family and friends). I don't use any welfare programs. I was wondering why I wasn't eligible for the EITC since an extra $5000 (likely less since I'm unmarried with no children) sounds pretty nice, but I looked it up and I'm just now 25, which is the cutoff (ages 25-65 are eligible), so I will be eligible this year.

Anyway the only problem I have with that article (other than its obvious bias that detracts from credibility in places) is the use of the term "disposable income". The minimum wage example doesn't have $37,777 in disposable income. The $5k EITC could arguably be disposable income, but the rest of it is benefits, not cash.

When a person or a group of person are in control of the value, IT IS CENTRALIZE. And no matter how you will call it, the problem still remain.

Let's assume for a second that your definition of centralization is correct. How would you create a decentralized currency? I could see something like limiting the amount any one address can hold, but people will just open multiple "accounts". We could tie accounts to identity, but then we need an organization to verify identities.

I think that this is something that will be hard to solve. But that is why I am posting this tread, to start a debate and look if we can find a solution. I have noticed that time limit is very unpopular in this forum. That will probably solve this problem but of course this solution is not perfect because it will create other problems..

Bitcoin decentralization is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Regardless of who you are, you are free to buy and sell as many bitcoins as you like, to mine, or to contribute code, without asking anyone for permission first.

In terms of outcome, yes the "natual outcome" is an unequal distribution of power, but enforcing a perfectly equal outcome would require curbing the above freedoms for some bitcoin users. Where to draw the line?

I am not even sure if a perfectly equal power distribution is desirable.

People who own more bitcoin are typically more invested in bitcoin and more capable and motivated to defend it than casual or newbie users.